If the most important thing in life is peace, then Obama is unquestionably the best leader possible.

B

And if not peace, make war. McCain would truely be your guy. He'll make us all safer.

__________________
Question Authority before it Questions you.

The argument against negotiating with terrorists is simple: Democracies must never give in to violence, and terrorists must never be rewarded for using it. Negotiations give legitimacy to terrorists and their methods and undermine actors who have pursued political change through peaceful means. Talks can destabilize the negotiating governments' political systems, undercut international efforts to outlaw terrorism, and set a dangerous precedent.
Yet in practice, democratic governments often negotiate with terrorists. The British government maintained a secret back channel to the Irish Republican Army even after the IRA had launched a mortar attack on 10 Downing Street that nearly eliminated the entire British cabinet in 1991. In 1988, the Spanish government sat down with the separatist group Basque Homeland and Freedom (known by its Basque acronym ETA) only six months after the group had killed 21 shoppers in a supermarket bombing. Even the government of Israel -- which is not known to be soft on terrorism -- has strayed from the supposed ban: in 1993, it secretly negotiated the Oslo accords even though the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) continued its terrorist campaign and refused to recognize Israel's right to exist.
When it comes to negotiating with terrorists, there is a clear disconnect between what governments profess and what they actually do. But the rigidity of the "no negotiations" stance has prevented any systematic exploration of how best to conduct such negotiations. How can a democratic government talk to terrorists without jeopardizing the integrity of its political system? What kinds of terrorists are susceptible to negotiations? When should negotiations be opened?
The key objective for any government contemplating negotiations with terrorists is not simply to end violence but to do so in a way that minimizes the risk of setting dangerous precedents and destabilizing its political system.

How do you like them apples???

Let me ask you this... would you really trust anything a terrorist told you?

Why do you think the IRA doesn't bomb London anymore? How do you like that apple?

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Because they are going after and "jailing" IRA members! They get what they deserve!

I think your apple has a couple worms in it...

Because the IRA focks blew the ***** out of a bunch of innocent people in Omagh ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/151985.stm ), turning the former sympathizers in Ireland and the USA against them. Even the Kennedy's turned against the IRA. That's almost like a Kennedy turning against the pope.

Lacking support, the Republicans had no alternative but to essentially negotiate terms of surrender.

B

That's not the story I heard. In fact the hardcore policy of detainment and torture of IRA suspects lead to more reprisal attacks in the 70's. They don't bomb London now anymore because a compromise was made.

I'd agree with never talking to terrorists if that policy was shown to make them lay down their arms and give up their cause. Only a fool would think that way. IMO governments shouldn't limit the tools in their arsenal. I have no problem killing or jailing terrorists. I also have no problem with governments making deals with those who don't have blood on their hands if that's what's going to lead to peace.

But this was not exactly the original topic. We were discussing talking to leaders of countries unfriendly to us, not some terrorist groups. Are you saying that talking to Khrushchev to take back his Cuban missiles was a bad idea? Should we have instead started a nuke war or just remain silent and hope everything would be alright?

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Their is nothing wrong with diplomacy as long as its done right.

For example I'm all for sitting down with Iran and hammering out a deal, however if we don't do it right they will think we are weak and use it to their advantage. I think if we put enough forces on their borders to invade, and made it look like we just might, they would talk and would respect us because they would know that if they told us to F off, we would overrun their country.

No lets take North Korea for example, their is a hot bed. But I know how to fix it. Taiwan is a cold war relec that is best forgotten about. We cut a deal with China, they will make the North Koreans come to the table, agree with whatever and carry it out, in exchange for Taiwan. Or you can just let NK collapse under its own weight, which is what Bush is probably trying to do, this isn't a bad idea either.

The Germans used this in a lot of the Balken states. You scare the crap out of them and they tend to do what you need them to do.

These people don't think like we do, you need to reverse your thinking about 500 years to get into their mentality. The hardliners are even worse, they just want us dead simple as that, you cannot talk to them. All you can do is kill them.

__________________
2016 Corvette Stingray 2LT
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

I like them fine. I just don't see what they have to do with Obama.No.

Well said, Hat. Useful negotiations require being in a position of strength and doing it right. We still have plenty of strength, though not nearly as much as we did before we got bogged down in Iraq. Iran was in a weaker position then and we made the mistake of ignoring the reformists and letting the hardliners (like Ahmadinejad) take power.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Bush and supporters have a flag draped over the shoulder and a bible in the hand. Jesus spoke of loving one's enemies. Bush and McCain are not willing to accord them even the respect of having the right to live or to have an opinion on matters that affect them directly, such as, oh, little things like being bombed.

Iran is not a small country -- bigger than Texas, California, Montana, and Georgia combined, with a population of more than 60 million. Their borders have not changed significantly since the 1600s. We think they're evil? Newsflash, they think the same of us. Not good enough reason to assume we can bomb first, talk later.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Right wing hawks would have us believe that “appeasement” means doing anything other than acting as though we have the right to control the world unilaterally.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Thanks for the Webster's 3. definition.

At first glance, yes, it makes sense to have talks and Obama seems to be right.
On the other hand Obama appears to be fresh and uncorrupted within the political arena. This is what America needs these days.

Yet I see, where he could possibly get too lofty in his presentation.

Persians are no wild animals, even though protrait this way at any given time.
They are not stupid either, maybe sleazy, if one may think of them that way.

I got to know many during my life so far and all of them being in possession of a pretty rational mind, next to being Muslims.

They want to make business just like anybody else, without commiting suicide.

__________________

John McCain should be on your list too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzDBi2nURNk

The problem here is that we insist on defining who has committed terrorism and who hasn't. The Palestinians will insist, not w/o justification, that settlers indulge in ongoing terrorism against rural Palestinians on the west bank. They will point out that the massacre at Deir Yassin was clearly an act of terrorism perpetrated by Jews. Other similar acts are alleged.

A former member of the IFD told me that many Israeli Jews acknowledge that Deir Yassin actually did happen, in the manner that detractors of Israel claim. He went on to say that the right wing in Israel, perhaps the most aggressively right wing crowd on the planet, deny it to the hilt.

Of course, Palestinians have perpetrated similar acts -- just who has done more would be subject to endless debate.

Many Muslims will claim that OIF was a shocking and awful example of state terrorism. American militarists will have none of it.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K